Prop 8 Overturned

[angelofdeath]

but an animal has an instinct to defend itself it a predator comes, we have that same instinct, it is just that rather than us calling it an instinct you are using the word rights.

Fight or Flight. That is a natural instinct not a right.

 

point taken.

 

While I do have issues with gun control, I would have no problem shooting someone that was attacking my family, I would use any weapon to hand, whether gun or brick, but only to defend my family. I could get in trouble for that, for instance using excessive force to stop an attacker but I would still do it because it is my natural instinct. In the eyes of the law I wouldn't neccesarily have the right to smash the attacker in the face 100 times with a brick but that would be my instinct.

 

this is where things get tough.

the law also says that if you are not in an immediate situation where you are threatened with grevious bodily harm, you cannot use force. in another words, a guy just rapes your wife and runs out the back door, you cant shoot him. if you do, you go to jail. justice says that guy should be dead, but...

 

this is where things get real tricky with the rights of the person who is attacked, invaded, etc.

another scenario... guy breaks in your house. says he has a gun. starts stealing your stuff, beating you around, half kills your kid, you either shoot him or beat him to death. turns out he doesnt have a gun, you COULD be looking at jail time for manslaughter.

sort of messed up aint it?

[Decyferon]

oh I agree it is messed up, I have always said fuck what the law says in those situations, I will straight kill the person with my bare hands if need be. Anyone messes with/threatens your family you kill them, if it turns out the attacker didn't have a gun tough shit for him.

 

I suppose if you had evidence of him claiming to have a gun, like internal CCTV or a recording you could probably beat the case.

[angelofdeath]

this is a topic even most gun authors wont comment on. very few do. one well known instructor even instructs his students at his school to not engage an attacker if he isnt attacking you personally or your family. he sternly states many will have strong moral objects to this (guy pointing gun at cashier in store to rob them, you are armed but dont react to the situation and stand down)

but its probably the best legal advice. there is a lawyer hanging on the end of every bullet that comes out of a firearm and it always makes me mad when aggressor's are not dealt with accordingly.

 

i have even read the employment of a 'cold gun' in certain circumstances. while this is illegal and probably not a good idea any way you look at it, it was presented in the book for informational purposes. but you can see with a broken legal system that some people might resort to having a gun in their house solely for planting on an intruder if they turn out to be violent but unarmed. not recommended and illegal, but interesting none the less.

[Decyferon]

yea there was a court case recently over here when someone got done for murder for killing an intruder, I think it is with the appeals court now, but it didn't spark some debate in parliment about changing the laws regarding defense of yourself in your own home if an intruder breaks in.

 

Personally if I did kill someone in my home and thought I had overdone it, I would just ask a mate to come round and smack me round a bit so I looked attacked then call it in. Or fabricate a story with my wife so we backed each other up and well who else is there to say what actually happened.

 

But hopefully it is never something that I will have to deal with, but it is the one thing that i am ssure of how I would deal with it.

 

If I was working and someone robbed the place I was at, and I was legally armed, I would just let them take everything they wanted, I wouldn't lose my life over some companies goods, they have insurance for that shit. Hell, they could waive the gun in my face and I would give them a guided tour of where all the expensive stuff was kept haha

[angelofdeath]

Personally if I did kill someone in my home and thought I had overdone it, I would just ask a mate to come round and smack me round a bit so I looked attacked then call it in. Or fabricate a story with my wife so we backed each other up and well who else is there to say what actually happened.

 

But hopefully it is never something that I will have to deal with, but it is the one thing that i am ssure of how I would deal with it.

 

yeah, its definitely one of those things that happens once in a life time, but when it does... its a bitch.

 

supposedly one of the best techniques to do when confronted with a home invader is to put your cell phone on speaker while callin 911 and throw it on the floor while the altercation takes place. if you have enough time to do so.

 

If I was working and someone robbed the place I was at, and I was legally armed, I would just let them take everything they wanted, I wouldn't lose my life over some companies goods, they have insurance for that shit. Hell, they could waive the gun in my face and I would give them a guided tour of where all the expensive stuff was kept haha

 

this is probably the safest bet.

however a store owner of a small business might think otherwise.

it also depends on what the motives of the person behind the threats which varies on a case by case basis. if they have already started shooting, all bets are off and its choice life or death and the fight to stay alive

[christo-f]

Wow. I missed that part where Christo said "natural rights" are fairy tales.

I'm going to go beat and enslave some black people now. Fuck 'em. They don't

have natural rights not to be beaten and enslaved. If anyone catches them

ganging up on me, I'm gonna tell them to shoot the black people. After all,

they don't have any right to defend themselves.

 

That's correct, nobody has any rights, they only have abilities.

 

 

Natural rights, what a contradiction in terms that is. Rights are a concept made up by humans, it's a social construct. Do you see the zebra saying to the lion "Uh uh uuhhh, natural rights bitch, git yo teef outa my ass!". No, the same as you do not see it ANYWHERE in nature because it is not a natural reality. It is a social reality.

 

Anyway, what gives you the right to say what rights are? Who gave you that right? Rights are only useful if you have a proper enforcement system. The fact that you have to enforce them implies that they are not at all natural. For if they were natural they would not have to be forced, right?

 

 

 

Rights are a concept written on paper by man. And they mean fuck all when a bigger badder bloke comes along and shoves that bit of paper up your arse.

 

 

Rights are determined by the person in power. Without the power to defend your rights you have none. That then reduces down to the fundamental point that rights are a variable and power is a constant.

 

 

Force is natural, rights are what the powerful say they are.

 

Fairy tales.

[angelofdeath]

"the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus."

-murray rothbard

[christo-f]

what we are trying to figure out is the govts' legitimacy in the first place.

is it right if a few of my friends get together and call ourselves a government and say that we all want to have our way with your wife or your daughter?

Dude, come on, what the fuck do you think the government is?!

 

The government IS force, the government IS power. That's the whole thing, mate! You go on about rights and liberty and all this shit but you're missing the play here. The legitimacy of a government rests in its power to be the sole decision maker and monopolise force. Legitimacy as in righteous, valid, credible, deserved, etc., yeah right, LOL!! When the fuck has that ever happend, mate? Come on, wake up and smell the blood.

 

There is NOTHING endowed in the human being or creation itself that says you are owed a god damned thing on the basis that you exist. you are kidding yourself if you think the world works like that.

 

HOWEVER, if you think the world SHOULD work like that, then it's up to you to make it that way. But there's one thing that you're going to need to make it happen......, power.

 

 

 

the logic is there 100% and you know it.

 

Yep, that's what I said, alright! The logic is there but reality sure as hell aint!!

 

 

 

in the US, the obama administration just argued in court that they have the right to assassinate american citizens they think are a threat. no trial, no due process, no nothing.

 

sure in theory, all laws must obey the constitution in the US, but 95% of them dont. do we really think this is going to stop them?

 

No, because they have the power, that's the point!! If rights were natural this wouldn't be happening, right? Rights are an endowment decided on by those in power. My evidence is what you just said above.

 

 

 

 

in the US the majority of the people and the majority of governments thought slavery was fine and even protected property rights in chattel slavery. is this ok? just because a dually elected government supports it?

 

From my moral perspective, no of course it is not ok. But who gives a fucking shit if its OK, dude. IT'S A REALITY BECAUSE POWER RULES. If rights were natural there would have been no slavery.

 

 

 

this is the basis of the disagreement. i believe people are born free. its that simple. i do not believe my rights come from tradition or from governments, like you do.

 

 

 

the very basis of government is the will of the majority. every one says it all the time...'but such and such percent of the public wants it!!!!'

 

the very act of politics is if you are outnumbered on anything you resign to the popular will.

 

Yeah and you know what another way to say that is? If they outnumber you they are more powerful than you so preservation says to go along or you'll perish at their hands. Democracy is a survival tactic of pack based creatures, mate. There's nature for you, it's in survival, not bloody rights!

 

 

 

you decided that you dont like guns, a bunch of people also decide it. the government takes takes away. majority of people say that people cant drink raw milk.... so its illegal. a majority of people say large bowled toilets and big toilet tanks are bad, they are illegal. majority in government says you have to have shoes with leather that is a certain thickness, otherwise you are fined. thin leather shoes are outlawed. majority of people think people dont own their bodies and dont have a right to consume various plant substances otherwise known as 'drugs.' outlawed. the majority of people think the 'rich' have to much money and they want to take it from them and they do. try to keep your earnings and not pay, you go to jail. resist forcibly enough, the police can shoot you.

 

Yeah, you know how they do that? Not because they have a right to but because they are more powerful than you. Welcome to reality!!!

 

i dont know how in the world you can come off saying that the will of the majority is never used or never conflicts with rights.

 

Hahaha, STRAW MAN ALERT!!!!

 

Show me where I said that the will of the majority is never used or never conflicts with rights!!

 

 

Hahaha, if you can't beat their argument, make on up yourself and beat that instead!! You'd make a wonderful politician, AOD!!

 

 

you could write a 25,000 page books of the various laws enacted that majorities in government and in the citizenry that violate citizens rights. and the 'majority' won the debate, rights be damned.

 

That's right, rights be damned because power will beat the crap out of them any chance it gets!!

 

 

things are better illustrated on the extremes.

but the premise is the same whether its a group of thugs or a government. government is nothing but a gang of thieves writ large!

 

Sure, but your example is still totally irrelevant to the reality that we live in. HOWEVER!! If three dudes came knocking at my door, they wouldn't have to take a fucking vote, guess why......., because they outnumber me and are more powerful. I could say to them, "Stop, in the name of national rights!!". What do you think their reaction would be? "Oh yeah, rights. Now, see the thing about rights is.. *punch rape steal kill*".

 

 

every single right of the people has been infringed in some way by the will of a majority.

 

Yeah you know why? Because the majority can. Nobody gives a shit about rights when they can prosper, dude.

 

 

i understand the world. history is nothing but the tale of the struggle against arbitrary power.

you think because i want freedom restored that i dont understand its probably a no win battle.

im a fan of lost causes. you win some you lose some. we won one in 1775. but that doesnt mean one should stop fighting, does it?

 

Nope, not at all. Just understand the fight is all I'm suggesting.

 

And BTW, history is not a tale about blah blah blah, it's a tale of the powerful getting their way.

 

i am also a realist in the sense that i know ron paul will never get elected for instance. i know people dont want liberty. but if people want out of the system, what gives anyone the right to keep them in?

 

They don't need a right to do that, rights are irrelevant when it comes to getting your way. They have the power to force you to live by their system, that's what government is, the power to make you do what they want!

 

i also have a bone to pick with the excessive theorizing that goes in on freedom circles. its great for the mind, but in reality, arguing about small small details in an ideology you agree with someone on 90% of the time drives a wedge in the group. libertarian, big L libertarian, anarcho capitalist, agorist, classical liberal, jeffersonian, ron paul republican, it really doesnt matter. its like trying to name the grandchild of an embryo and no one is even pregnant. which is why i try my hardest to focus on broad issues

 

I stopped talking sociology with feminists when I realised how much ironing they can get done when I stop distracting them with chatter....

 

 

 

i get it, i dont like it and i will continue to promote the idea of freedom whenever possible.

just because something is hard or difficult to attain, does it mean we should just shut up and go home?should the jews of been armed in 1930's germany and fought back? would you fight with them if you were there or would you be a good jew and march off willingly on the cattle car never to be seen or heard from again?? should everyone who is oppressed just simply shut up and take it and be killed? should we just shrug our shoulders at oppression?

what a disturbing world view.

 

Hahaha, STRAW MAN ALERT!!!

 

Show me where I said one should accept oppression and lay down and die.

 

 

 

You gotta learn to read closer and pay attention to what's being said. The only true path to freedom is power.

 

Do they sound like the words of a defeatist?

 

 

 

Try actually digesting what I'm saying rather than creating false arguments that allow you to disregard what you know is true.

[christo-f]

"the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus."

-murray rothbard

 

Sounds wonderful, still a fairy tale though.

 

 

 

 

Law is the imposition of the will of power. -Christo-f

 

 

Reality doesn't get any rawer than that, my friend.

 

 

 

 

 

you cannot defeat what you cannot understand.

[christo-f]

 

 

men are different than animals. animals do not have rights. if this were the case we would not be eating them.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh dear.

 

 

and there endeth the whole fucking thing.

 

 

So, your circular argument would go: We eat animals because they have no rights, how do we know they have no rights, because we eat them.

 

Circular logic my friend.

 

 

Now, the problem here is that if you say that you were joking when you said this you therefore support Decy's argument and defeat your own. But if you were not joking you also defeat your argument. Why?

 

your logic here says that animal has no rights and this is proven by the fact that we do not consider their wellbeing when considering our own.

 

Therefore one could also say that the slaves had no natural rights and this is proven by the fact that the white farmers enslaved them. For if their rights were natural they would occur on their own behalf, regardless of intervention. For if some one could intervene that would make them not a natural reality and simply a concept that had once been endowed and then taken away.

 

 

 

AOD, what you are explaining to us is not a natural reality but a faith in humanity.

 

 

You travel with me for a year and you gonna lose that faith, real fucking quick.

[angelofdeath]

The government IS force, the government IS power. That's the whole thing, mate! You go on about rights and liberty and all this shit but you're missing the play here. The legitimacy of a government rests in its power to be the sole decision maker and monopolise force.

 

agreed 1000% percent.

government is force. government is the negation of liberty. government violates your rights by its existence. but just because something IS doesnt mean it SHOULD.

natural law is rested on a belief that humans have a basic principle of morality that they are born with. essentially the non aggression axiom. if someone invades your rights, you have a right to self defense. but it is folly to conclude that simply because government does certain things or because criminals do certain things that this legitimate. without a theory on rights/property rights, you cannot define what is a crime.

 

There is NOTHING endowed in the human being or creation itself that says you are owed a god damned thing on the basis that you exist. you are kidding yourself if you think the world works like that.

 

who ever said that someone is owned a damned thing? i never said anyone is 'owed' anything. to be 'owed' something would imply that someone is obligated to give you something.

negative liberties simply mean if you come in my house and try to invade my rights or threaten my life, i'll kill you. if you try to tell me what to do, i'll throw off your rule. positive rights are what you are implying which are a basic violation of freedom

 

HOWEVER, if you think the world SHOULD work like that, then it's up to you to make it that way. But there's one thing that you're going to need to make it happen......, power.

 

i see what you are saying, but the basic understanding is that rights come from what you say they are or what government says they are, which i reject.

the only time someone who is staying within their rights uses 'power' is in self defense. in order to use self defense one must violate your rights. if rights dont exist, then self defense cannot exist and there is no way to determine who is a murderer and who is simply defending their existence.

 

 

No, because they have the power, that's the point!! If rights were natural this wouldn't be happening, right? Rights are an endowment decided on by those in power. My evidence is what you just said above.

 

rights are natural to everyone. just because governments have decided to trample these rights does not take them away. what governments, atleast the intent in the US, was to create a body that protected natural rights.

 

From my moral perspective, no of course it is not ok. But who gives a fucking shit if its OK, dude. IT'S A REALITY BECAUSE POWER RULES. If rights were natural there would have been no slavery.

 

this is a logical fallacy.

rights exist, but in the case of slavery, people violated the slaves rights. just as governments violate rights. its the same thing. you seem to be trying to imply that rights are not natural because god didnt create the perfect infallible man that commits no sin and therefore does not violate rights. people commit crimes. how we determine what a crime is, is based on a theory of rights. the classical liberal tradition holds that rights are born into every human.

 

Yeah and you know what another way to say that is? If they outnumber you they are more powerful than you so preservation says to go along or you'll perish at their hands. Democracy is a survival tactic of pack based creatures, mate. There's nature for you, it's in survival, not bloody rights!

 

 

democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner. liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

 

Show me where I said that the will of the majority is never used or never conflicts with rights!!

 

you said that if a government passes a law, which is based on democracy, it is legitimate, no matter what.

 

That's right, rights be damned because power will beat the crap out of them any chance it gets!!

 

defense of rights is a tough business.

a slave is one that is waiting to be set free.

in order to attain freedom, you have to protect it. there are forces in the world that seek to dominate.

this was the experiment that was tried in the late 1700's in america.

 

HOWEVER!! If three dudes came knocking at my door, they wouldn't have to take a fucking vote, guess why......., because they outnumber me and are more powerful. I could say to them, "Stop, in the name of national rights!!". What do you think their reaction would be? "Oh yeah, rights. Now, see the thing about rights is.. *punch rape steal kill*".

 

you just dont get it.

your previous arguments say that whatever a government decides is well and just.

i simplified it by having a democratic election of your goods/rights/whatever on your door step.

a belief in natural law gives you, the morally righteous person in the situation, the right to blow these guys away with battle rifles. (which you dont want in the hands of citizens because you are scared of people with them)

 

And BTW, history is not a tale about blah blah blah, it's a tale of the powerful getting their way.

 

glass half full or half empty?

 

 

They don't need a right to do that, rights are irrelevant when it comes to getting your way. They have the power to force you to live by their system, that's what government is, the power to make you do what they want!

 

the basis of natural law is universal basic morality.

just because someone violates rights or uses force, which is illegitimate, does not make it morally right.

 

 

Show me where I said one should accept oppression and lay down and die.

 

this is the logical conclusion of your argument. you do not believe in natural rights, therefore one cannot assess what is right and wrong. the governments decided to oppress people and this MUST be right according to people that hold your ideology. and since you dont believe in a right to life that is inherent in your humanity, you therefore have no right to defend it.

[angelofdeath]

Oh dear.

 

 

and there endeth the whole fucking thing.

 

 

So, your circular argument would go: We eat animals because they have no rights, how do we know they have no rights, because we eat them.

 

Circular logic my friend.

 

 

Now, the problem here is that if you say that you were joking when you said this you therefore support Decy's argument and defeat your own. But if you were not joking you also defeat your argument. Why?

 

your logic here says that animal has no rights and this is proven by the fact that we do not consider their wellbeing when considering our own.

 

Therefore one could also say that the slaves had no natural rights and this is proven by the fact that the white farmers enslaved them. For if their rights were natural they would occur on their own behalf, regardless of intervention. For if some one could intervene that would make them not a natural reality and simply a concept that had once been endowed and then taken away.

 

 

 

AOD, what you are explaining to us is not a natural reality but a faith in humanity.

 

 

You travel with me for a year and you gonna lose that faith, real fucking quick.

 

so you are saying that animals have the same rights as humans (who dont really have rights, they have 'fairy tales') ?

i personally believe there is a 100% difference between an animal and a human. where does it end? do rodents have rights? what about insects? venomous spiders? microscopic animals?

 

maybe im just a weirdo because i dont believe that a snail has the same rights as me.

 

perhaps a study on the ethics of liberty is in order:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard135.html

[lord_casek]

Christo: You ever shoot any haji's? Is that where this animosity towards your fellow man comes from? Blasting haji's in the desert do your head for a right proper spin, mate?

 

[christo-f]

so you are saying that animals have the same rights as humans (who dont really have rights, they have 'fairy tales') ?

 

STRAW MAN ALERT!!!

 

Show me where I said that animals have rights.

 

 

 

i personally believe there is a 100% difference between an animal and a human. where does it end? do rodents have rights? what about insects? venomous spiders? microscopic animals?

 

maybe im just a weirdo because i dont believe that a snail has the same rights as me.

 

perhaps a study on the ethics of liberty is in order:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard135.html

 

Hard to have a conversation when you work so hard to avoid the point.

 

 

 

You cannot defend your argument.

 

 

 

You have about as much to argue for your beliefs as does a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Hindu.

 

Faith, nothing else.

[christo-f]

agreed 1000% percent.

government is force. government is the negation of liberty. government violates your rights by its existence. but just because something IS doesnt mean it SHOULD.

 

Ah, the good old "SHOULD", the catch cry of the weak and those that just don't get it.

 

 

 

natural law is rested on a belief that humans have a basic principle of morality that they are born with. essentially the non aggression axiom. if someone invades your rights, you have a right to self defense. but it is folly to conclude that simply because government does certain things or because criminals do certain things that this legitimate. without a theory on rights/property rights, you cannot define what is a crime.

 

Yeah you can. Kim Jong Il, the Chinese governemnt, Robert Mugabe, Than Shwe, Bashir al-Assad, etc., do it all the time!! They have a theory on rights and property but they don't give a shit! If they don't like some one they just make something up and say it's a fucking crime!!

 

Legitimacy DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING, nobody gives a fuck about it. You don't have to be legitimate to be powerful, but the most powerful always get their way.

 

See, your whole view of things is theoretical, not practical. That was my whole point in the property rights convo. Your theory of land rights and the national parks etc. is based on the premise that man is a rational actor, which quite obviously is not true. Theory is fantastic but reality is what we deal with in the physical world.

 

 

 

who ever said that someone is owned a damned thing? i never said anyone is 'owed' anything. to be 'owed' something would imply that someone is obligated to give you something.

negative liberties simply mean if you come in my house and try to invade my rights or threaten my life, i'll kill you.

Not if my gun is bigger than yours, you won't! See what I mean? Power dude, not rights.

 

 

if you try to tell me what to do, i'll throw off your rule.

Only if you're more powerful than me. If you're not, too bad for you and your rights!!

 

positive rights are what you are implying which are a basic violation of freedom

ok

 

 

i see what you are saying, but the basic understanding is that rights come from what you say they are or what government says they are, which i reject.

 

Reject it all you want, won't change a thing, though.

 

 

the only time someone who is staying within their rights uses 'power' is in self defense. in order to use self defense one must violate your rights. if rights dont exist, then self defense cannot exist and there is no way to determine who is a murderer and who is simply defending their existence.

 

That's the whole fucking point!!

 

The government is the most powerful so they decide what is murder and what is execution and what is crime and what is legal, etc. etc. POWER HAS THE LUXURY TO CREATE THE REALITY.

 

 

 

rights are natural to everyone.

you can say that a million times over, doesn't make it real though.

 

just because governments have decided to trample these rights does not take them away.

 

 

Yeah it does. I have a gun, you don't, I take your "right to live" away..., BANG.

 

Rights go bye bye now.

 

what governments, atleast the intent in the US, was to create a body that protected natural rights.

 

Yeah, and that changed over time and you don't have the power to live the way you want to.

 

See the play here? You say you have natural rights and then complain that the government tramples on them. Can't be much of a constant if they can be taken away from you!

 

 

 

this is a logical fallacy.

rights exist, but in the case of slavery, people violated the slaves rights. just as governments violate rights. its the same thing. you seem to be trying to imply that rights are not natural because god didnt create the perfect infallible man that commits no sin and therefore does not violate rights. people commit crimes. how we determine what a crime is, is based on a theory of rights. the classical liberal tradition holds that rights are born into every human.

 

Oh well it must be true if the classical liberals said it!!

 

Mate, you can talk about rights all you want. I can show you in every case where power trumps rights.

 

 

you keep on saying "rights exist" like it's some kind of infallible truth, kind of like the way religious people say "god exists" but can't give you a shred of evidence for it.

 

You saying it does not make it true.

 

I can display power and prove that it exists. Can you display rights and prove they exist?

 

 

Or are you just faithful to the thought of them?

 

 

 

 

democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner. liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.

 

Noooo, my ever so theoretical and overly simplistic cliche using friend. Power is two wolves ripping a lamb apart.

 

Another way to say that is "lambs only shoot guns and contest ballots in children's fairy tales".

 

 

 

you said that if a government passes a law, which is based on democracy, it is legitimate, no matter what.

 

 

Hahahha, STRAW MAN ALERT!!!

 

Show me where I said that.

 

 

 

I've asked you to show me where I say all these things but you've never come up with one.

 

 

 

Actually, fuck it. I'm done here. you're now just making up bullshit because you can't keep up. Nowhere have I mentioned justice as I don't believe it exists and I never EVER mentioned right when it comes to the govt and majority decision. As a matter of fact, I said that they win because they outnumber you. If you think that means justice then...., a fuck it. You will make this say whatever suits yourself anyway.

 

I like you dude as you're heart is definitely in the right place and I reckon you're more than likely a good bloke. However you are a fundamentalist. You will stick to your story no matter what is put in front of you because it's what you want to believe. If some one comes up with something you cannot reason away, you just make up bullshit.

 

so all in all, good luck to you and have fun with your rights, I'm gonna go shoot a hippie.

[angelofdeath]

if you understand natural rights theory, (read the article for starters) you will not say i am 'avoiding the point.'

 

christians, muslims and jews have faith. but so do evolutionists. they are essentially operating, at present, on faith that some process or some phenomenon can turn non matter into matter. (which they cant prove yet)

 

"Show me where I said that animals have rights. "

 

i ASKED if you believe animals have rights.

[christo-f]

Christo: You ever shoot any haji's? Is that where this animosity towards your fellow man comes from? Blasting haji's in the desert do your head for a right proper spin, mate?

 

 

No animosity here mate, quite a lot of disgust though. Our comfy little homes with honest people that say hello and help you with your bags are an anomaly in this world. We are the strange ones, violence, power, unhygienic, selfish, etc., is the norm in reality.

 

I understand full well that there is only the ability to defend yourself or be consumed by he who is stronger than you. Our mate AOD understands this as well, that's why he has a gun fetish and a belief in hands off govt, because he believes he can take care of himself. He just got lost in this whole romantic idea of rights, as if they exist in this world.

 

 

Ability to stay alive and be happy is the only thing to invest in. Most of the time it means siding with the majority instead of standing out and saying NEIN!!!

[christo-f]

if you understand natural rights theory, (read the article for starters) you will not say i am 'avoiding the point.'

 

christians, muslims and jews have faith. but so do evolutionists. they are essentially operating, at present, on faith that some process or some phenomenon can turn non matter into matter. (which they cant prove yet)

 

"Show me where I said that animals have rights. "

 

i ASKED if you believe animals have rights.

 

Hahaha, that's how you ask a question is it?!

 

so you are saying that animals have the same rights as humans (who dont really have rights, they have 'fairy tales') ?

i personally believe there is a 100% difference between an animal and a human. where does it end? do rodents have rights? what about insects? venomous spiders? microscopic animals?

 

maybe im just a weirdo because i dont believe that a snail has the same rights as me.

 

Really, so you weren't implying anything here at all? Come on mate, don't belittle yourself, stick to your guns.

 

 

 

But to humour you, I believe that many legal systems afford them rights and the ®SPCA enforces those rights. But take the power of that legal system away and they're just another lump of meat, just as you are without a legal system behind you.

 

 

 

Tell me, when you walk in to Somalia, where there is not functioning government, do you have rights there to? Or do rights only exist under a legal structure?

[angelofdeath]

this is hobbes and locke version 2010.

you are a hobbesian, im a lockean. why cant you simply live your life as you want to and let me live my life as i want to? it doesnt affect you one iota if i believe in natural rights and it doesnt affect me if your want to get permission from the government to live. just because a govt squelches freedom, doesnt mean freedom isnt a desirable goal.

 

YES everyone has rights by nature of their humanity. this does not mean that people dont want to violate them.

it is a theory of rights that determines what crime is.

now where the libertarian and the paleo-con may differ is.... the paleo con might say.... if we have natural rights and everyone has them, then we must embark on a world wide crusade to enforce them. whereas the libertarian says...we should not do this but recognizes that rights (i mean fairy tales) do exist inherently in every person, of any race, color or creed.

 

i am sticking to my guns.

i dont believe animals have rights whatsoever. that is why i find nothing wrong with animals are kept and processed for meat or when they are killed hunting, etc.

 

if we are to believe that animals have rights, then we should then be giving everyone who eats meat the death penalty.

(i shouldnt of said that because im sure there are plenty that actually believe this)

 

what we agree on is that power, violence and crime exists in the world.

where as i believe this is simply just a threat to my liberty, you believe that your rights come from these various warring factions that give you permission to do certain things.

 

this is where i get my marching orders from:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

[christo-f]

you believe that your rights come from these various warring factions that give you permission to do certain things.

 

Well, put a better way, I believe that permission comes from the person holding the biggest stick.

 

And the fact is this is a reality. You believe rights are endowed in each man.

 

Fact is, that's just a belief and a wish.

[lord_casek]

No animosity here mate, quite a lot of disgust though. Our comfy little homes with honest people that say hello and help you with your bags are an anomaly in this world. We are the strange ones, violence, power, unhygienic, selfish, etc., is the norm in reality.

 

I understand full well that there is only the ability to defend yourself or be consumed by he who is stronger than you. Our mate AOD understands this as well, that's why he has a gun fetish and a belief in hands off govt, because he believes he can take care of himself. He just got lost in this whole romantic idea of rights, as if they exist in this world.

 

 

Ability to stay alive and be happy is the only thing to invest in. Most of the time it means siding with the majority instead of standing out and saying NEIN!!!

 

 

 

I think I understand where you're coming from. Doesn't mean I agree or like it, but I think

I get it.

[christo-f]

Yeah, I'm not saying I support this concept, don't make the mistake and think I'm making a value judgement. It's a simple observation of the dynamic.

 

The world is not a pretty place, unfortunately.

 

 

 

 

So, back to Adam and Steve......

[cunt sauce]

so you are saying that animals have the same rights as humans (who dont really have rights, they have 'fairy tales') ?

i personally believe there is a 100% difference between an animal and a human. where does it end? do rodents have rights? what about insects? venomous spiders? microscopic animals?

 

maybe im just a weirdo because i dont believe that a snail has the same rights as me.

 

 

I am going to throw my inner anarcho-primitivist in to this little discussion and say... WE ARE ANIMALS TOO.

 

While the human species is unique in that we have linguistics and culture and tool making skills, we are still just as much susceptible to the laws of ecology as any other living creature on this planet. Separating yourself from the world around you and pretending that we humans live outside of this "nature" or "environment" is anthropocentric.

 

Our cultural belief that the world was made for man is what will ultimately destroy our species. Its objectification at its finest. The same attitude we have in objectifying the natural world around us is the same attitude we see when the economic elite objectifies the working class or the impoverished third world. When rapist objectifies the raped, the Slave trader objectifies the slave and so forth. Life is being seen as dollar signs. Women are seen as only a venue for their cock by a lot of men. Do you know that 30% of women in this culture are raped during their lifetimes? Whats even crazier is that outside of our culture there were Indigenous Tribes that didn't even have words for rape... or child abuse. Or suicide. Simply because there was no reason to create a word for something that NEVER happens. Maybe we could learn from them?

 

All of these terrible atrocities we see in history are manifestations of the dominant culture centered around objectification and abstracting the violence committed onto others just to keep this economic system based upon production going. Solution? We need an economic system not centered around Production. I think we also need a slow transition away from our form of labor intensive agriculture and an overall reduction in the population if we want to survive as a species. Basically.. Civilization has got to go. Especially Industrial Civilization.

 

</caveman philosophy tangent rant oner>

 

 

weeeeeeewwwwwww

[cunt sauce]

i am sticking to my guns.

i dont believe animals have rights whatsoever. that is why i find nothing wrong with animals are kept and processed for meat or when they are killed hunting, etc.

 

if we are to believe that animals have rights, then we should then be giving everyone who eats meat the death penalty.

(i shouldnt of said that because im sure there are plenty that actually believe this)

 

 

Do you know that the average factory farm produces as much waste as the entire population of Los Angeles? I think that little piece of trivia might suggest we might be doing something wrong. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we shouldn't eat meat. That's ridiculous. Animals eat animals. We are an Animal. We evolved to consume flesh, that is why we have sharp canine teeth. I guess you can do whatever the hell you want to do and think whatever you want to think, but I will share with you my philosophy when it comes to these sort of things..

 

Placing a heavy emphasis on ownership and treating animals (or even pieces of land) as property is the wrong way to live in my eyes. This isn't to say we shouldn't try and survive by consuming other forms of life, this is only saying that treating the world as if it is only there for us to use, consume, rule, dominate, control, and coerce is wrong. When you raise your shotgun to the sky to shoot a migrating Canadian Goose to the ground, you aren't doing it because you OWN it. You are doing it because you are hungry and a Goose is a great source of calories. I think when you abstract this relationship between predator and prey and place the animal in a Concentrated Feeding Operation or whatever, you tend to not care whether it suffers or not. I am going to arouse my inner sociologist and try to link this kind of idea to how we in the developed world relate to the third world. When you have your clothes manufactured across the Continent in Honduras or Nicaragua, this relationship between you and the seamstress is abstracted. Atrocities couldn't be committed upon these people of the third world if you actually had a face to face relationship with them just as the average person couldn't raise a cow or chicken in despicable conditions and end its pathetic existence in an inhumane way. Unless of course you were desperate, such as illegal immigrants trying to make ends meat working for Purdue or Tyson farms.

[christo-f]

Yeah, the idea of natural rights has as much basis in objective reality as does religion.

 

It's an abstract concept that has a faithful following. As with religion people argue for its legitimacy by using metaphor and emotion because there is no possible objective and rational argument to support it. It's a belief system not a reality.

 

You can believe that man is born with rights and animals are not but that doesn't make it a truism, it just makes it your belief. Just like saying a billion Muslims believing that Mohammed ascended to heaven off of a rock doesn't make it true, it just means that a billion people believe it.

 

 

There is a distinct difference between objective realities and beliefs and faith.

 

One objective reality I know of is that if I have power over you your rights disappear. Your belief that you have them may remain but the objective reality is that if I chain you to a wall your freedom doesn't exist. So therefore your right to it becomes irrelevant and no longer part of reality.

 

 

Rights are something you believe in and strive to enjoy, they are not something that actually exists beyond a belief in them.

[angelofdeath]

Placing a heavy emphasis on ownership and treating animals (or even pieces of land) as property is the wrong way to live in my eyes.

 

i think you are looking through a certain lens. i think you are equating all privatized animal herds with CAFO operations. what about poly face/joel salatin pasture finished cows? should he not also own these animals?

 

This isn't to say we shouldn't try and survive by consuming other forms of life, this is only saying that treating the world as if it is only there for us to use, consume, rule, dominate, control, and coerce is wrong.

 

if what you are saying is that we need to acknowledge nature a little more and respect it, im all for this. however in the big picture, our own lives on a personal level, we seek to use, consume and dominate nature. if we didnt, we'd be living in caves. nature is cruel and dangerous if left to its own devices. it must be used, dominated and consumed on some level.

 

When you raise your shotgun to the sky to shoot a migrating Canadian Goose to the ground, you aren't doing it because you OWN it. You are doing it because you are hungry and a Goose is a great source of calories. I think when you abstract this relationship between predator and prey and place the animal in a Concentrated Feeding Operation or whatever, you tend to not care whether it suffers or not.

 

i dont really see a difference in its suffering in either case. to quote keynes...'in the long run, we are all dead.'

 

now, do i think is it more humane to finish a cow more like poly face farms for its last month or two or is it more humane to put it in a CAFO for its last month or two, i'd obviously choose the polyface model.

 

however, i think you are overlooking a huge positive role in animal privatization. take the buffalo for instance. there is very little difference between the buffalo and the domesticated cow. yet the buffalo went extinct (almost) and the cow never came anywhere close to it. because it was privatized. because the cost of killing a cow today means you wont have it tomorrow. whereas killing a herd of buffalo that no one owns costs nothing. you didnt see 'cow hunters' in the 1800's massacring domesticated cow herds did we?

the same is true of elephants in africa. some of the elephants in certain countries were privatized and put under control of the villages who in turn stewarded the herds, allowed only limited hunting and charged for it and the ivory poaching problem disappeared. it only existed in socialized countries.

 

i believe domestication of animals plays a huge role in the livelihood of many people. without privatization of animals we wouldnt have milk, eggs, yogurt, wool, honey, etc etc. (i remember fondly years ago hearing vegans saying they couldnt eat honey because it 'exploits' an animal)

 

 

I am going to arouse my inner sociologist and try to link this kind of idea to how we in the developed world relate to the third world. When you have your clothes manufactured across the Continent in Honduras or Nicaragua, this relationship between you and the seamstress is abstracted. Atrocities couldn't be committed upon these people of the third world if you actually had a face to face relationship with them just as the average person couldn't raise a cow or chicken in despicable conditions and end its pathetic existence in an inhumane way. Unless of course you were desperate, such as illegal immigrants trying to make ends meat working for Purdue or Tyson farms.

 

i see what you are saying.

however, i think it is fair to point out the origin of these issues stems from the govt. if govt was so burdensome with its taxes and regulations, most of the jobs that were outsourced would probably still be here. if it werent for governments with its taxes, regulations, zoning laws, etc. people would still be in closer proximity to their food. all these rules, regs, taxes, laws, subsidies, etc protect the big guy and harm the little guy in the farming world. if it werent for cheap subsidized corn, grass finished beef on pasture might be just as competitive as commercial grain finished beef. i mean we could go on forever, but i think you get the drift.

 

however if you are simply referring to the fact that people in other countries are able to work for very cheap wages by US standards, this surely doesnt equate to an atrocity. if one works in new york city they may pay 2000 a month rent for a 500 sq ft shit hole apartment and make 6000 a month. if one works in alabama they might make 2000 a month and pay 400$ a month for the same shit hole apartment. are people in alabama having atrocities committed against them? extrapolate this to the regions of the 'sweat shops.' if there is a willing payer and there is a willing worker, who are we to trash talk the deal? from what i understand the 'sweat shop' generally pays 2-3-4 times the market value of the services in the native area.

[russell jones]

 

christians, muslims and jews have faith. but so do evolutionists. they are essentially operating, at present, on faith that some process or some phenomenon can turn non matter into matter. (which they cant prove yet)

 

 

Evolutionary Theory is not concerned with abiogenesis (origin of life from inanimate matter). There is no faith required to believe that evolution is responsible for the varying lifeforms on this planet. Criticism=Fail.

 

BTW, this is getting way off point.

[Pew_Pew_Pew]

There is an argument that the word "Marriage" is what the opponents to gay marriage are up in arms about. The heterosexuals believe this is somehow raping their idea of what marriage should be.

 

The gay community does not want to be classified as different, they want the same rights but they don't want a "civil union". I agree with an article I read that they could be successful if they scrapped the word marriage and used something entirely different. If the word was changed but the rights remained intact this could be the way to go. Who cares if it's civil union, or anything else. You are still "married"...I wouldn't ask my girlfriend to civil union me. That's silly.

[angelofdeath]

Evolutionary Theory is not concerned with abiogenesis (origin of life from inanimate matter). There is no faith required to believe that evolution is responsible for the varying lifeforms on this planet. Criticism=Fail.

 

BTW, this is getting way off point.

 

im no expert, but i thought when you boil evolutionary theory down, it still doesnt explain where life came from... and since they deny a superior being/God created it, they are essentially left to believe that non matter can be turned into matter. since there is no proof of this being possible, it requires 'faith' to believe it.

[angelofdeath]

There is an argument that the word "Marriage" is what the opponents to gay marriage are up in arms about. The heterosexuals believe this is somehow raping their idea of what marriage should be.

 

The gay community does not want to be classified as different, they want the same rights but they don't want a "civil union". I agree with an article I read that they could be successful if they scrapped the word marriage and used something entirely different. If the word was changed but the rights remained intact this could be the way to go. Who cares if it's civil union, or anything else. You are still "married"...I wouldn't ask my girlfriend to civil union me. That's silly.

 

some goods points in here... but you hit the nail on the head as to the actual main argument amongst the various factions.

marriage has essentially been defined for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman usually with an intent or purpose of procreation. the gay community, etc, wants to change this. they have a long way to go to convince the traditionalists and NEVER will. you will never change either sides view point. so why even try? which is why the traditionalists go wrong by using the state to grant their marriage a special privilege by way of a license (among other things). why let the state define it at all?

the gay marriage types should not be trying to lobby the state to grant them a permission slip to engage in a certain relationship, they should simply engage in the certain relationship and push for a government to enforce freedom... in this case contracts between consenting adults, religious or otherwise.

 

if the state no longer defines such a divisive issue that will never be compromised on either side, neither side has a right to interfere in the others affairs. catholics, baptists, etc will have straight marriage and universalists. liberal episcopaleans and secularists, atheists etc will have gay marriage if they want it and neither group needs a permission slip to engage in the act nor permission to title it however they want.